Port Authority Access to Facility Vulnerability Assessments and the Integration of Security Systems, 7334-7336 [2013-02209]

Download as PDF 7334 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. 13. Technical Standards This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. 14. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Add a temporary § 100.35T07–1098 to read as follows: ■ mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS § 100.35T07–1098 Special Local Regulations; Fajardo Offshore Grand Prix, Rada Fajardo; Fajardo, Puerto Rico. (a) Regulated Areas. The following regulated areas are established as special local regulations. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983. (1) Race Area. All waters of Rada Fajardo encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°21.357N, 65°37.203W; thence east to VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:23 Jan 31, 2013 Jkt 229001 Point 2 in position 18°21.334N, 65°37.112W; thence northeast to Point 3 in position 18°22.322N, 65°36.481W; thence west to point 4 in position 18°22.365N, 65°36.585W; thence southwest to point 5 in position 18°21.733N, 65°37.112W; thence south back to origin. All persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed boat race, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area. (2) Buffer Zone. All waters of Rada Fajardo encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°22.492N, 65°36.515W; thence east to Point 2 in position 18°22.423N, 65°36.355W; thence southwest to Point 3 in position 18°21.297N, 65°37.110W; thence west to point 4 in position 18°21.369N, 65°37.264W; thence north to point 5 in position 18°21.728N, 65°37.220W; thence northeast back to origin. All persons and vessels except those persons and vessels enforcing the buffer zone, or those persons and vessels participating in the race event and transiting to the race area, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the buffer zone. (3) Spectator Area. All waters of Rada Fajardo excluding the race areas and buffer zone, encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°22.540N, 65°36.421W; thence southeast to Point 2 in position 18°22.331N, 65°36.205W; thence southwest to Point 3 in position 18°21.199N, 65°36.995W; thence west to Point 4 in position 18°21.205N, 65°37.243W; thence back to origin. All vessels are prohibited from anchoring and traveling in excess of wake speed in the spectator area. On-scene designated representatives will direct spectator vessels to the spectator area. (b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated representative’’ means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port San Juan in the enforcement of the regulated areas. (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from: (A) Entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area, unless participating in the race. (B) Transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the buffer zone, unless enforcing the buffer zone or a PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 race participant transiting to the race area. (C) All persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring in, or traveling in excess of wake speed in the spectator zone. (2) Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas by contacting the Captain of the Port San Juan by telephone at (787) 289–2041, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated representative. (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives. (d) Enforcement Date. This rule will be enforced from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. on March 17, 2013. Dated: December 31, 2012. D.M. Flaherty, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Captain of the Port San Juan. [FR Doc. 2013–02082 Filed 1–31–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 105 [USCG–2012–0907] Port Authority Access to Facility Vulnerability Assessments and the Integration of Security Systems Coast Guard, DHS. Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: ACTION: This notice requests comments from facility owners and operators, State and local law enforcement agencies, port authorities, relevant security industry participants, and all other interested members of the public regarding how to best implement Section 822 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. In particular, this notice discusses the Coast Guard’s preliminary thoughts on how owners or operators of certain facilities might make their Facility Vulnerability Assessments available to certain law enforcement agencies and port authorities, and integrate their facility security systems with compatible SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM 01FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS systems operated or maintained by certain law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard. DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before May 2, 2013 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2012–0907 using any one of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 0001. (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, call ´ or email Lieutenant Commander Jose L. ´ Ramırez, Office of Port and Facility Compliance, Cargo and Facility Division (CG–FAC–2), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters; telephone 202–372–1150, email Jose.L.Ramirez@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to submit comments and related material. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (USCG–2012– 0907) and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:23 Jan 31, 2013 Jkt 229001 telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and use ‘‘USCG–2012–0907’’ as your search term. Locate this notice in the search results and click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ box to submit your comment. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Viewing the comments: To view the comments, go to http:// www.regulations.gov and use ‘‘USCG– 2012–0907’’ as your search term. Filter the results by checking the box for ‘‘Public Submissions’’ on the left side of the page. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility. Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316). Public meeting: After considering public comments, we may hold one or more future public meetings to provide another forum for public comment. We will announce the time and place of any future public meetings by a later notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose Section 822 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 281, 124 Stat. 2905) (CGAA 2010) amended 46 U.S.C. 70102 by imposing the following mandates: (1) the owner or operator of a facility must make a current copy of the Facility Vulnerability Assessment (FVA) available to the ‘‘port authority with jurisdiction of the facility’’ and ‘‘State or local law enforcement agencies;’’ and (2) PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7335 the owner or operator of a facility must ‘‘integrate, to the maximum extent practical,’’ the facility’s security systems ‘‘with compatible systems operated or maintained by State, law enforcement agencies, and the Coast Guard.’’ Section 822 is intended to increase industry stakeholder and government agency (local, State, and Federal) collaboration efforts to identify, prevent, mitigate, and respond to Transportation Security Incidents (TSIs) and other disasters. If the Coast Guard undertakes a future rulemaking to implement Section 822, it would apply to facilities regulated by the Coast Guard under the Maritime Security Transportation Act of 2002 (MTSA). Existing Coast Guard regulations include a number of provisions that require facility owners and operators to ensure the timely involvement of law enforcement and emergency responders in the event of a TSI or other disaster. Each Facility Security Assessment (FSA) must contain provisions for contingency planning, emergency preparedness and response, and communications capabilities (33 CFR 105.305). Facility Security Officers (FSOs) are required to notify law enforcement personnel and other emergency responders, as soon as possible, to permit their timely response to any TSI (33 CFR 105.205(c)(16)). Each facility access point must provide a primary and backup means of contacting police, security control, or an emergency operations center by telephone, cellular phone, portable radio, or other equivalent means (33 CFR 105.235(c) and (d)). State and local emergency responders are not required to obtain or possess a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) in order to gain unescorted access to secure areas of a facility during an emergency situation (33 CFR 101.514(d)). While the Coast Guard believes that in most instances, the measures detailed above are adequate to ensure the timely involvement of State and local law enforcement and emergency responders, additional regulations may be necessary to close potential gaps that might hinder an appropriate emergency response to a TSI or other disaster. Preliminary Alternatives Considered We have considered a number of possible ways to implement the requirements in Section 822. We describe these approaches below to inform the public of our preliminary thoughts on implementing Section 822 and to solicit public comments to gain a better understanding of the issues that concern affected parties, as well as E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM 01FEP1 7336 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules current industry practices on facility interactions with port authorities, State and local law enforcement agencies, and the Coast Guard. We are also interested in any information and data about the costs associated with these approaches as well as any potential benefit. These comments may assist us in formulating policy as we consider a future rulemaking to implement Section 822. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS FVA Sharing Alternatives • Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to make a copy of the current FVA available to the cognizant Coast Guard Captain of the Port, port authority, and State and local law enforcement agencies, upon request. The owner or operator would share the FVA via electronically secured transfer. Do facilities store FVAs electronically? Are you able to save them as an encrypted or password-protected file? • Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to proactively provide a copy of the current FVA to the port authority and State and local law enforcement agencies at a prescribed time interval (as opposed to making copies of FVAs available to the port authorities and law enforcement upon request). The owner or operator would share the FVA via electronically secured transfer. Are you able to encrypt or passwordprotect the FVA electronic copy and/or deliver it on a password-protected CD, flash drive, or other storage medium? • Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to share the current FVA with the port authority and State and local law enforcement agencies annually at the annual exercise required under 33 CFR 105.220 or at a newly required annual FVA sharing meeting. • Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to share the current FVA with the port authority and State and local law enforcement agencies during the regularly scheduled 5-year resubmission process of the Facility Security Plan (FSP). • In addition to the requirement to share the current FVA, require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to make the Security Measures Summary (CG–6025) available to the relevant government authorities and law enforcement agencies for review at the end of the required annual exercise or equivalent (33 CFR 105.220). • In addition to the requirement to share the current FVA, require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to update the FSP to incorporate FVA-sharing measures. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:23 Jan 31, 2013 Jkt 229001 Security System Integration Alternatives • Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to have and demonstrate via annual exercises the ability to provide manual alerts regarding a TSI to appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard. Is 15 minutes a reasonable estimate of the additional time needed to comply with this requirement? • Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to have and demonstrate via annual exercises the ability to provide automated alerts regarding a TSI to appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard. Is 15 minutes a reasonable estimate of the additional time needed to comply with this requirement? • Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to make security data feeds regarding a TSI (e.g., alerts, video feeds, alarms, etc.) available to appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard. Do appropriate levels of technology exist at both the facility and receiving government agency to comply with this requirement, which would consist of sharing telecommunications information such as Internet addresses, phone numbers, passwords, and encryption codes? • Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to incorporate a technological solution that integrates their electronic surveillance and communications systems with compatible systems operated or maintained by the appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard. There is a range of possible methods for integrating security systems, including Internet connectivity, dedicated telephone lines, and other forms of security system integration. Information Requested 1. We request comments on the feasibility, costs, and benefits of each of the preliminary alternatives described above. Please be as specific as possible. For estimates of costs a break-out by specific cost element would be preferable to a lump sum. For example, provide separate estimates for the equipment, number of hours and type of worker needed to install the equipment (i.e. master electrician, labor, supervisor), number of hours and type of employee (i.e., trainer, mid-level manager) to prepare and execute training, and on-going maintenance costs. Cost estimates can be provided as ranges. PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 2. We request comments as to whether there are any data, literature, or studies that demonstrate the feasibility, costs, and benefits of each of the preliminary alternatives described above. 3. We request comments from MTSAregulated facility owners and operators regarding current industry practices with respect to security system integration between the facility and State and local law enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard and, emergency responders. 4. We request comments as to whether the requirement to integrate facility security systems with those of State and local law enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard, and emergency responders should be limited to only those MTSAregulated facilities that are identified in risk-based and other applicable types of analyses. If so, please identify the characteristics of those facilities. 5. Aside from the preliminary alternatives described above, please provide any other alternatives on preferred ways to implement the requirements in Section 822. For any such alternatives suggested, please include information and data as to the feasibility, costs, and benefits. 6. We request any additional comments from interested parties on the subject matter of this notice. This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C. 70102(c) and 70124. Dated: January 25, 2013. P.F. Thomas, Director, Inspections and Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard. [FR Doc. 2013–02209 Filed 1–31–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG–2012–0365] RIN 1625–AA00 Safety Zone; Alaska Marine Highway System Port Valdez Ferry Terminal, Port Valdez; Valdez, AK Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone on the navigable waters of Port Valdez within a 200-yard radius of the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) Port Valdez Ferry Terminal. The purpose of the safety zone is to restrict all vessels SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM 01FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7334-7336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02209]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 105

[USCG-2012-0907]


Port Authority Access to Facility Vulnerability Assessments and 
the Integration of Security Systems

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice requests comments from facility owners and 
operators, State and local law enforcement agencies, port authorities, 
relevant security industry participants, and all other interested 
members of the public regarding how to best implement Section 822 of 
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. In particular, this notice 
discusses the Coast Guard's preliminary thoughts on how owners or 
operators of certain facilities might make their Facility Vulnerability 
Assessments available to certain law enforcement agencies and port 
authorities, and integrate their facility security systems with 
compatible

[[Page 7335]]

systems operated or maintained by certain law enforcement agencies and 
the Coast Guard.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our 
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before May 2, 2013 
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0907 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on 
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
call or email Lieutenant Commander Jos[eacute] L. Ram[iacute]rez, 
Office of Port and Facility Compliance, Cargo and Facility Division 
(CG-FAC-2), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters; telephone 202-372-1150, 
email Jose.L.Ramirez@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material. All 
comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have 
provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the 
docket number for this notice (USCG-2012-0907) and provide a reason for 
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and 
material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only 
one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a 
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of 
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding 
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and 
use ``USCG-2012-0907'' as your search term. Locate this notice in the 
search results and click the ``Comment Now'' box to submit your 
comment. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit 
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable 
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and 
material received during the comment period.
    Viewing the comments: To view the comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and use ``USCG-2012-0907'' as your search term. 
Filter the results by checking the box for ``Public Submissions'' on 
the left side of the page. If you do not have access to the Internet, 
you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management 
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of 
Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of 
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a 
Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in 
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Public meeting: After considering public comments, we may hold one 
or more future public meetings to provide another forum for public 
comment. We will announce the time and place of any future public 
meetings by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Section 822 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 
111-281, 124 Stat. 2905) (CGAA 2010) amended 46 U.S.C. 70102 by 
imposing the following mandates: (1) the owner or operator of a 
facility must make a current copy of the Facility Vulnerability 
Assessment (FVA) available to the ``port authority with jurisdiction of 
the facility'' and ``State or local law enforcement agencies;'' and (2) 
the owner or operator of a facility must ``integrate, to the maximum 
extent practical,'' the facility's security systems ``with compatible 
systems operated or maintained by State, law enforcement agencies, and 
the Coast Guard.'' Section 822 is intended to increase industry 
stakeholder and government agency (local, State, and Federal) 
collaboration efforts to identify, prevent, mitigate, and respond to 
Transportation Security Incidents (TSIs) and other disasters. If the 
Coast Guard undertakes a future rulemaking to implement Section 822, it 
would apply to facilities regulated by the Coast Guard under the 
Maritime Security Transportation Act of 2002 (MTSA).
    Existing Coast Guard regulations include a number of provisions 
that require facility owners and operators to ensure the timely 
involvement of law enforcement and emergency responders in the event of 
a TSI or other disaster. Each Facility Security Assessment (FSA) must 
contain provisions for contingency planning, emergency preparedness and 
response, and communications capabilities (33 CFR 105.305). Facility 
Security Officers (FSOs) are required to notify law enforcement 
personnel and other emergency responders, as soon as possible, to 
permit their timely response to any TSI (33 CFR 105.205(c)(16)). Each 
facility access point must provide a primary and backup means of 
contacting police, security control, or an emergency operations center 
by telephone, cellular phone, portable radio, or other equivalent means 
(33 CFR 105.235(c) and (d)). State and local emergency responders are 
not required to obtain or possess a Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential (TWIC) in order to gain unescorted access to 
secure areas of a facility during an emergency situation (33 CFR 
101.514(d)).
    While the Coast Guard believes that in most instances, the measures 
detailed above are adequate to ensure the timely involvement of State 
and local law enforcement and emergency responders, additional 
regulations may be necessary to close potential gaps that might hinder 
an appropriate emergency response to a TSI or other disaster.

Preliminary Alternatives Considered

    We have considered a number of possible ways to implement the 
requirements in Section 822. We describe these approaches below to 
inform the public of our preliminary thoughts on implementing Section 
822 and to solicit public comments to gain a better understanding of 
the issues that concern affected parties, as well as

[[Page 7336]]

current industry practices on facility interactions with port 
authorities, State and local law enforcement agencies, and the Coast 
Guard. We are also interested in any information and data about the 
costs associated with these approaches as well as any potential 
benefit. These comments may assist us in formulating policy as we 
consider a future rulemaking to implement Section 822.

FVA Sharing Alternatives

     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to 
make a copy of the current FVA available to the cognizant Coast Guard 
Captain of the Port, port authority, and State and local law 
enforcement agencies, upon request. The owner or operator would share 
the FVA via electronically secured transfer. Do facilities store FVAs 
electronically?
    Are you able to save them as an encrypted or password-protected 
file?
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to 
proactively provide a copy of the current FVA to the port authority and 
State and local law enforcement agencies at a prescribed time interval 
(as opposed to making copies of FVAs available to the port authorities 
and law enforcement upon request). The owner or operator would share 
the FVA via electronically secured transfer.
    Are you able to encrypt or password-protect the FVA electronic copy 
and/or deliver it on a password-protected CD, flash drive, or other 
storage medium?
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to 
share the current FVA with the port authority and State and local law 
enforcement agencies annually at the annual exercise required under 33 
CFR 105.220 or at a newly required annual FVA sharing meeting.
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to 
share the current FVA with the port authority and State and local law 
enforcement agencies during the regularly scheduled 5-year resubmission 
process of the Facility Security Plan (FSP).
     In addition to the requirement to share the current FVA, 
require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to make the 
Security Measures Summary (CG-6025) available to the relevant 
government authorities and law enforcement agencies for review at the 
end of the required annual exercise or equivalent (33 CFR 105.220).
     In addition to the requirement to share the current FVA, 
require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to update the 
FSP to incorporate FVA-sharing measures.

Security System Integration Alternatives

     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to 
have and demonstrate via annual exercises the ability to provide manual 
alerts regarding a TSI to appropriate State and local law enforcement 
agencies and the Coast Guard.
    Is 15 minutes a reasonable estimate of the additional time needed 
to comply with this requirement?
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to 
have and demonstrate via annual exercises the ability to provide 
automated alerts regarding a TSI to appropriate State and local law 
enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard.
    Is 15 minutes a reasonable estimate of the additional time needed 
to comply with this requirement?
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to 
make security data feeds regarding a TSI (e.g., alerts, video feeds, 
alarms, etc.) available to appropriate State and local law enforcement 
agencies and the Coast Guard.
    Do appropriate levels of technology exist at both the facility and 
receiving government agency to comply with this requirement, which 
would consist of sharing telecommunications information such as 
Internet addresses, phone numbers, passwords, and encryption codes?
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to 
incorporate a technological solution that integrates their electronic 
surveillance and communications systems with compatible systems 
operated or maintained by the appropriate State and local law 
enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard. There is a range of possible 
methods for integrating security systems, including Internet 
connectivity, dedicated telephone lines, and other forms of security 
system integration.

Information Requested

    1. We request comments on the feasibility, costs, and benefits of 
each of the preliminary alternatives described above. Please be as 
specific as possible. For estimates of costs a break-out by specific 
cost element would be preferable to a lump sum. For example, provide 
separate estimates for the equipment, number of hours and type of 
worker needed to install the equipment (i.e. master electrician, labor, 
supervisor), number of hours and type of employee (i.e., trainer, mid-
level manager) to prepare and execute training, and on-going 
maintenance costs. Cost estimates can be provided as ranges.
    2. We request comments as to whether there are any data, 
literature, or studies that demonstrate the feasibility, costs, and 
benefits of each of the preliminary alternatives described above.
    3. We request comments from MTSA-regulated facility owners and 
operators regarding current industry practices with respect to security 
system integration between the facility and State and local law 
enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard and, emergency responders.
    4. We request comments as to whether the requirement to integrate 
facility security systems with those of State and local law enforcement 
agencies, the Coast Guard, and emergency responders should be limited 
to only those MTSA-regulated facilities that are identified in risk-
based and other applicable types of analyses. If so, please identify 
the characteristics of those facilities.
    5. Aside from the preliminary alternatives described above, please 
provide any other alternatives on preferred ways to implement the 
requirements in Section 822. For any such alternatives suggested, 
please include information and data as to the feasibility, costs, and 
benefits.
    6. We request any additional comments from interested parties on 
the subject matter of this notice.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C. 
70102(c) and 70124.

    Dated: January 25, 2013.
P.F. Thomas,
Director, Inspections and Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-02209 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P